View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2007, 01:46 PM
glitch's Avatar
glitch glitch is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,046
usa us washington
glitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud ofglitch has much to be proud of
Credits: 13,431
Default So

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
- He made the tough decision to try to deal with the third rail - Social Security.
By "try to deal with" Social Security, you mean replace it entirely in favor of another form of an IRA. Dealing with Social Security means tweaking it to remain solvent through the baby boomers phase of retirement, not dismantling it.

Quote:
The Dems just threw mud at his ideas and offered none of their own.
One idea offered was reducing benefits for high-income earners. My preference involves raising the retirement age to correlate with the assumed increased life expectancy (the major reason why there is a projected shortfall in 30+ years).

Quote:
The Dems were able to scare many seniors and this hurt him.
Is that why Bush called the projected Social Security shortfall a "crisis" and eluded that it must be replaced with private accounts? This was one time the fear card didn't work for him.

So you didn't like Bush's proposed solution. Gee there's a surprise. However the point is that he made the tough decision and effort to address what was considered a very politically dangerous issue because he believed in it. The Dems made no effort to amend his plan or to put their own on the table. They just stood on the sidelines and threw rocks.
Reply With Quote